Is using custom content a must?

[Tai_MT]

Let's put it this way.  The kind of people who ignore games that use the RTP or have RTP like stuff in them are the kinds of players you don't want anyway.  Those players are usually the hypocritical "graphics whores".  You know, the people who must have the absolute best in graphics so that in 10 years, it can look like crap in comparison to what new graphics look like.  Hypocrites.

A game only needs enough graphics to accomplish what it needs to for the narrative.  Oh, and sometimes, it can even be beneficial to have a "lack of graphics" as players using their imagination gets them more invested in your game...  And imagination is always better than reality.

 

[amerk]

That's true I think for most communities; and every community has their share of newbies who aren't put off with the RTP. So even if there are some who will thumb their noses at you, there's plenty of others who won't care.

But once you get outside of the niche groups and the hobby makers, it can get tough, depending on where you go. Amaranth for example seems pretty tolerant of RPG Maker games, whereas Steam Greenlight requires a much harder sale (although it seems that as more people become aware of RM games in GL, more of these are being upvoted now than in the past).

 

[Doobles]

A game only needs enough graphics to accomplish what it needs to for the narrative.  Oh, and sometimes, it can even be beneficial to have a "lack of graphics" as players using their imagination gets them more invested in your game...  And imagination is always better than reality.

Lack of graphics?  That last line looks more to me like an excuse to be lazy.  A game can have the best story ever, but if the graphical content isn't there then I am not sold.  I've played many RTP-only games, and some of them were good, but different graphics from the basic toolbox make the game look much more refreshing and original.  Yes that is biased, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way, as the original RTP over and over can burn me out.  When I read a book I can imagine all day long, but when I play games I need visuals.

 

[bgillisp]

Lack of graphics?  That last line looks more to me like an excuse to be lazy.  A game can have the best story ever, but if the graphical content isn't there then I am not sold.  I've played many RTP-only games, and some of them were good, but different graphics from the basic toolbox make the game look much more refreshing and original.  Yes that is biased, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way, as the original RTP over and over can burn me out.  When I read a book I can imagine all day long, but when I play games I need visuals.

Depends on how it is used. I've played some games that used ASCII graphics that are way better than these *fancy bloom particle* whatever passes for fancy graphics these days. For example, Age of Wonders 3...while it looks pretty, I prefer 2, even though it doesn't have the prettiest graphics (anymore). Reason is I felt 2 was a deeper game overall. Graphics can impress at first, but just like anything else that is beautiful, if there is nothing underneath the pretty surface, you will tire of it quickly.

The way to look at it is it is a tradeoff. You can either spend all your time making a game look pretty, or making a good game. Usually you don't have time to do both. I'd rather have the good game than the pretty game. And yes, if that means wireframe (think Wizardry 1) or ASCII graphics, then go for it.

 

[Tai_MT]

Well, Doobles...  You're not the kind of player I want playing my game anyway.  Complain about "laziness" all day long if you like.  Here's the problem with your argument:

1.  Not everyone is a graphics artist.  I, for one, have zero talent with brush or mouse in terms of making my own content.

2.  If you want anything that even looks close to the quality of the original RTP you'll be paying money for it.  The more work you want, the more money you pay.  This is a risky proposition as not everyone sells their game.  Not only that, but games that are being sold aren't necessarily going to make any money back.

3.  If you need graphics to look "refreshing and original"...  Well, you're kind of missing the point of a video game.  A video game is meant to be played.  As in, interacted with.  Decent graphics does not make a good or even mediocre game.  Graphics contribute jack and squat to a game for people interested in everything about a game that is not the visual orgasms Graphics Snobs want.  As in...  Story.  Characters.  Features.  Systems.

4.  There are quite literally thousands of examples of games with mediocre graphics (or indeed, no graphics at all!) that are absolutely fantastic to play.  There are also thousands of examples of games that "look really fantastic", but are absolute garbage to play.

Graphics are and should always be simply the coat of paint you put on your finished product.  That paint can look drab or look nice.  It can add or subtract to whatever it's placed on depending on how it's executed.  However, that paint isn't necessary to waterproof your house.  A coat of Lacquer can do the job just fine.

If you must have "shiny fancy graphics" to play a game...  Well, you my friend, are missing the entire point of playing a game to begin with.

EDIT:  Actually, just Youtube the video "Ross's Game Dungeon Tyrian".  He makes a much better argument about graphics than I ever could.  I'd post the link if the forums weren't hopelessly broken for my PC.  No clue why, they've been like that since a forums update over a year ago.

 

[Sharm]

I'm with Doobles on this one. If an RM game hasn't made any effort to do anything but use out of the box visuals, I won't play it. Though I think there is a problem that often comes up in this type of disagreement. High fidelity graphics and good looking graphics are completely different things, and those are both different from aesthetics. Let's make sure we're arguing about the same thing here. I care quite a bit about good looking graphics but I could really care less about all that high fidelity garbage.


A game that only uses out of the box RTP and does nothing to make the graphical element it's own thing is ignoring the aesthetics of their craft, something I would argue is absolutely essential, otherwise, why would a game need any graphics at all? If graphics do not add to your game in some way, they are in the way and should not be included. A game that has terrible graphics can still have excellent aesthetics, it all depends on whats being communicated by the art, or lack of it. RTP when not given any attention beyond just using it to make a game communicates a lack of care that I look at and assume is carried on to other aspects of a game. Which is why I won't play it. However, put a little effort into it, add some good lighting, do some simple clumping, add a few free to use extras that prove you're willing to at least look at what is available, and I'll believe you've put some effort into the game too.


I don't play a lot of RM games, but the ones I do play care quite a bit about graphics. This is because, to me, playing a game that is pretty is important and part of my enjoyment of a game. Even if it's a good game, if it's ugly, I just won't enjoy it as much. So for me, judging a game by it's graphics is an important part of the process of narrowing things down, I want to have fun every time I play a game after all. Graphics are part of what makes a game a game to me, if I didn't want it, I wouldn't be playing a game.

 

[Doobles]

Well excuse you... I am not arguing good or bad graphics, I am arguing same graphics and games that have poor mapping.  Pardon if I was a little unclear with that, and please don't attack me for having a realistic opinion Tai, we are both better than that.

1.  Everyone can learn how to parallax with GIMP and a simple script, not that everyone should do it, but doing this can draw way more attention to your game and, most of the time, it will and is effort well spent.

2.  I meant more with parallax, again my mistake, and I absolutely agree with your point here.

3.  You're correct, a video game is meant to be played, as in my eyes, but with an RPG you pretty much have a visual story you act out.  Visual needs to be somewhat important in a visual story, so they do amount to jack squat.

4.  I never said there weren't, but not every game with bad graphics looks the same as all the others.  Also, I have played a ton of games with super fantastic graphics that sucked, so we are on the same page here.  

After saying I have played many RTP based games, I don't know how you can't find it reasonable I want some change.  I am not saying your game needs to have quality similar to the Sistine Chapel paintings for me to play it, but I feel tossing graphics to the side like you seem to be proposing is a little silly.  Doing something to make your game stand out is pretty much necessary with software that lets you make a game so easy that a child can do it.

With mention of all these fancy bloom particles and what-not, wasn't this thread specifically about RPG Maker games?

 

[Kes]

I think part of the issue here is an unhelpful polarisation - either RTP or custom graphics which is well beyond the budget of most people. Yet, as has just been pointed out, there is a ton of free to use stuff available; lighting overlays don't cost anything; simple clumping in a free program like GIMP does not require any artistic skill beyond a decent eye, and so on. So I personally don't buy the notion that using the RTP means that the developer then does nothing with it.When I see a game where there has been no attempt to use any of the things I've listed, I'm going to assume that little work has gone into other aspects either, just as Sharm does, for example. That assumption was borne out of extensive experience. I have played many good games which used RTP graphics - but they also used the things I listed. If nothing else, they are evidence that the dev has imagination. And you need that.

 

[Tai_MT]

My point is, and always has been, "it isn't what your graphics look like, it's what you do with them".  I'm honestly not sorry to say that anyone that says, "you didn't put effort into your game because you're using default RTP graphics" isn't the kind of player I want playing my game.  They are typically the kind of person that isn't going to understand what I want to accomplish with a game.  As in, they're the kind of person who "judges a book by its cover" and isn't willing to give graphics a pass for an interesting or fun experience.

I will, and have, played games in ASCII.  I've played text only games before.  I even played a Visual Novel where the main character was actually Blind, and you could play "Blind Mode" to see how that would play out.  Let me tell you, playing Blind Mode first and interacting with people purely based on wording and text as well as the occasional Japanese voice...  It's a whole different experience than most visual novels give.  In fact, it was an even better experience "Blind" than it was when you could see what was going on.  Graphics not required.

I don't have problem with people spicing up their own graphics.  Do so because you want to, not because you think it needs to be done.  Spice up your graphics because you want a specific visual style, or specific character model, or what-have-you.  Don't do it because someone says, "Well, I just won't play a game without any custom graphics because I believe it means you didn't put any work into it".

Let  me ask you one simple question:

Have you ever played a game on the sole recommendation of "It looks fantastic"?  As in, you know nothing else about the game, except that it looks good.  Your friend comes in and says, "Man, you have to play this game!  IT LOOKS AMAZING!".  No, you haven't.  Why?  Because after the first 10 minutes of gameplay, the graphics are merely there to communicate what's going on (or to be so flashy that you can't see WTF is going on... a la most modern RPG combat that's filled with flashes, particle effects, rays of light blocking out animations, etcetera).  No, your friend comes up to you and says, "Man, you have to play this game because it's so fun!  It's awesome!"  And you reply, "What's it about?  What's it like?"  To which your friend rattles of the basic story if they're nice, or spoils the whole story if they're a jerk...  Then starts listing systems... listing characters...  listing comedy...  listing features...  Listing how multiplayer is so much fun.  Listing how the story was so good that you cried.  Listing how interesting some crafting system is and how versatile it was...

Why?  Because, when it comes right down to it...  While graphics are somewhat important to get what's going on across to the player...  They're non-vital to everything else a game actually is.

Because of that fact, I don't believe anyone should prematurely judge an "RTP Only" game as "lazy".  Or judge it as "they didn't bother to put any work into it".  Judgments should be reserved for after actually playing the game.  If a lack of graphics keeps you from enjoying a story, or deep characters, or fun combat...  Well, I just feel sorry for you.  You have just effectively limited what kinds of games you'll play and what experiences you'll have as a result of an arbitrary choice.  As such, no, you're not the kind of player I want playing my game.  My game is not meant for those that need pretty and original graphics to sate their own preconceived notions of "work put into a game" or "care taken with design of a game".

To me, it's just fairly offensive to have someone say, "I won't play your game because you use default RTP and don't have any custom artwork".  It's akin to someone saying, "I won't read your book because it doesn't have pictures in it".  At least for me, that's how it sounds.

 

[Sharm]

Well, a book doesn't have to have pictures to be a book. But if someone handed me a graphic novel with no pictures, I'd be ticked off.

It's all very nice to say "I'm not going to judge anything by how it presents itself because I might miss something awesome" but the reality is that there are far too many games, really fantastic games, than a single person could play. More are being made every second. The game that has all those things you mentioned, amazing characters, deep plot, moving scenes, touching dialogue, ect. and yet doesn't have a single drop of care put into its graphics? Unless it is a game with no graphics at all I would go so far to say that a game like that does not exist. I dare you to give me just one example.

The thing is, everyone has to judge a book by it's cover at some point. That's what covers are for.

 

[Tai_MT]

Well, I would argue the counter point...  How many RPG Maker games have you played with custom graphics that are absolute garbage?  That are boring?  Poorly written?  2 Dimensional characters?

The fact of the matter is this:

It's just as easy to request and obtain custom resources for your game as it is to simply use the RTP.  If you're using "custom graphics" as a means of trying to determine which games are good and which are not...  Well, it's going to be about the same amount as those that don't use custom graphics.  See, most people who pick up RPG Maker are rank amateurs.  That's the nature of the game making.  Vast majority of people don't know what they're doing or how to do it.  So, even with custom anything, you'll still get real stinkers of games.  Why?  Because custom anything doesn't mean you've implemented it well, or sensibly.  It usually just means you cared enough to make it look pretty as a means to attract those that forget the nature of game design (namely that there are just as many terrible games that look fantastic as there are fantastic games that look terrible).

Using "custom graphics" as some kind of barometer on whether or not someone put any work into their game (or even care!) is rather silly when you consider the sheer amount of free content that can be obtained from not just this website, but other websites.  Or, when you consider how easy and quick it is to obtain recolors or a single character.  Or, if you must spend a little money, how cheap it can be.  Literally anyone can do it.  So, sticking with RTP is a design choice.

Personally, I'll at least play an hour or two into a game to see if it's any fun before making a judgment on it.  Why?  Because I know the secret.  It's easy as crap to get and install custom content so it's not really a very good indicator of "work put into a game".  It's more indicator of a game dev trying to trick you into playing his/her game by making it look pretty.

It's also very interesting to note that people will immediately say, "no effort was put into this game!" when they see the RTP, but they conveniently (or just easily) forget that there are games out there with custom content out the wazoo that clearly have no effort put into story, characters, mechanics, battle, etcetera.  Why?  Because they were more interested in attracting an audience based upon the "oooo!  Shiny!" impulse of human behavior instead of trying to hold you to playing the game after download.

I don't remember bad games based upon how they look.  Oh no, I remember bad games based upon my experience with them.

Also...  I don't buy a book based upon the cover of it.  I know lots of people think "that's what the cover is there for!", but I really don't subscribe to that.  I flip the book over and read the synopsis.  If it sounds like something I'd like to read, I pick it up.  I don't care what's on your cover.  I'm checking to see if the content is something I might enjoy before making a purchase.  The cover of a book is merely the "marketing" arm of selling it.  If you buy something based upon marketing...  Well, you end up with craptastic games like Destiny.  Or Call of Duty.  Or Final Fantasy 13.

I just prefer to be more sensible with my purchases than "well, it's got custom content, so they must've put some work into it!".  I just don't think that's a very good measurement on whether or not a game would be fun.

EDIT:  Again, I'm not arguing against using custom graphics.  Use them if you want.  I'm merely making the argument that judging a game based upon whether or not it has custom graphics is as silly as picking one loaf of bread over another because the packaging of one of them is better decorated.  It happens, yes I know, but that doesn't make it any less silly.  You'd buy bread based upon the quality of the bread and not of the packaging.  Sadly, we're now arguing over whether or not the packaging of your game is any kind of indicator of the quality of it.

As for the "provide me just one example" nonsense...  That's a tall order considering any major game in the industry is all custom content to avoid copyright laws.  But, those games are usually teams of 100s, so they've got dedicated and experienced people on their payrolls to do all the artwork junk.  If you're talking about just RPG Maker games...  Well, I'd simply challenge you to find a game with the "amazing characters, deep plot, moving scenes, and touching dialogue" among them.  I don't play many RPG Maker games myself, but I seriously doubt there are many of those games among the list, even with nice graphics.  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find many games of that quality among AAA releases that aren't RPG Maker games.  Just saying.

Hell, in my entire history with gaming, I've only run into a single game that made me feel anything.  That game?  Mass Effect 3.  Why?  Mordin dies and it's sad and tragic.  We're talking one game out of maybe thousands I've played over the years.

 

[bgillisp]

I'm going to steer this back to the OP's original question some. Based on the points here, here is my answer. No, custom content is not a must. However, without it, it will be a little harder to reach your target audience, and you may have to wait some for some people to discover your game as they will first pass it by due to the initial impressions.

So, I think we can summarize it this way. Custom content = easier time reaching target audience. No custom content = takes longer to reach target audience, as you will now need to wait for those who don't care about graphics to try the game, and then spread the word to others that this is a good game.

Now, once you have a few games released and a bit of a rep, then it will be easier.

 

[Sharm]

My word, you're really good at not really listening to a counter argument Tai. Sometimes I think you ignore what people say just so you can keep arguing. I have never once argued that someone has to have custom graphics to have a good game, just that they have to show some actual effort in using what graphics they have or I won't touch their game. Since you agree that game makers should put some effort in to at least finding free graphics and using them correctly, I'm not sure why you're still telling me off for how stupid my opinion is.
 

Well, I would argue the counter point...  How many RPG Maker games have you played with custom graphics that are absolute garbage?  That are boring?  Poorly written?  2 Dimensional characters?

Zero. After all, I don't use the graphics as the only way to judge content, just one way. Every single RM game I've played that had a high amount of custom graphics have also been the best RM games I've played.
 

It's just as easy to request and obtain custom resources for your game as it is to simply use the RTP.

You do realize how completely false this is, right? Obviously obtaining custom resources requires some effort otherwise everyone would have it. I'm not sure what the point was supposed to be with this statement.
 

Also... I don't buy a book based upon the cover of it.

Of course not, that would be silly. Neither do I. But the whole reason you pick up that book in the first place, what was that? Or do you go through an entire book store and pick up every single book and read the synopsis? My point has never been that graphics are the only thing people judge by. My point is that it is AN element of the judgement process, and rightly so. Because it is a part of the judgement process it should be given some consideration. Not all the consideration, just some.
 

As for the "provide me just one example" nonsense... That's a tall order considering any major game in the industry is all custom content to avoid copyright laws.

I'm not sure how it's nonsense, since it seems the entire point of your argument is that you can remove aesthetics completely and still get an amazing game. My argument is that you can't. Also, I was allowing you the entirety of all gaming to choose from, I don't care if it's a fan game or not. I just want one example, since your point is that it can exist and my point is that it can't.

Graphics isn't just advertising. It is an element of the story telling processes, it is an element of the game itself. I think that's what this argument all comes down to, you seem to think that it's not an element of the game itself, which I think is completely ridiculous. The graphics are in the entire game, of course it's part of the actual game.

To put my argument another way, making a game is like baking. If you leave out the chocolate chips, you aren't going to get chocolate chip cookies. It's a reality of the process. If you completely ignore the pretty graphics, people aren't as likely to pick up or enjoy the game. If you ignore the aesthetics, you're not going to get a very good game. I agree that both the graphics and the aesthetics are just one small part of the game. The pretty graphics are like chocolate chips, you'll still get a cookie, but it won't necessarily taste as good and people who want a chocolate chip cookie will be upset. The aesthetics, however, are essential, it'd be like leaving out a key ingredient like salt or baking soda. What comes out might look like a cookie but it won't taste good at all.

 

[bgillisp]

You do realize how completely false this is, right? Obviously obtaining custom resources requires some effort otherwise everyone would have it. I'm not sure what the point was supposed to be with this statement.

Not quite true. I've played some (non-RM) games where it felt like they just threw $$$ at an artist and hoped the graphics would sell the game. So someone with a deep wallet could buy and commission a lot of custom resources, but still have a junk game underneath it.

 

[Sharm]

Well, sure, but throwing money at it still requires some effort, if just from the obtaining of money in the first place.  I'm just not sure what he meant by "as easy" which is clearly untrue.  Besides, finding a good artist to throw money at isn't always easy either.

 

[whitesphere]

It sounds like there are a lot of inexpensive ways to make "custom" graphics that aren't hard, even for the artistically-challenged like myself.  Such as even little things like combining or recoloring default RTP resources to add variety.

So what it sounds like is this:

- Custom content can be great icing on the cake, but you still need a good, solid game underlying the content, or the custom content is just lipstick on a pig of a game.  And you may as well have lit your money on fire for all the good it will do you.

- If you are just starting out, making games for yourself or your close friends, it doesn't matter if you use custom content or not.  Personally, I think it's great to get your feet wet with game making and build your skills before trying to make any real custom content, unless you're naturally artistically inclined and really want to use the game as a way to improve your artistic game skills.

- For a game you want to publicize, custom content can be a "foot in the door" for some potential players or customers.  And here, you can start very simply, things that don't take much artistic talent to do.  At least those will separate you to some degree from "Just using stock RTP" biases.

Basically, you don't NEED to do ANY custom content.  But, if you want to have the broadest possible audience, even adding a few extra touches can go a long way to at least not turning some people away from your game.   None of this means you need to spend thousands of dollars on tons of custom content to make a successful game.  But adding in some, even small amounts of custom content can really attract more interest.

 

[Tai_MT]

Eh...  Two examples in all of gaming then, Sharm.

Limbo (a game in which the entirety of the "graphics" are pure black silhouettes).  And "Thomas Was Alone".  Granted, I've never played either, but they receive pretty high acclaim from players and critics alike...  Including as "good stories".  Found two examples for you.  But, if you mean "strictly RPGs".  Well, I'd be hard pressed to find many RPGs that I'd even consider "good" to begin with.  Not that I'm some curmudgeony guy who can't have fun with a game...  it's just, it's really difficult for me to blur the lines between fantasy and reality for a video game, so it's much harder for me to "become invested" in what usually amounts to troperiffic characters, cliché storylines, predictable twists, and really weird/odd execution.  I've played a lot of RPGs...  your RPG has to be particularly special for me to proclaim it anything more than "mediocre".  But, I guess if either of us really cared about that point enough, we could probably conduct google searches long enough to find games that fit the critera.  Right now, all either of us is drawing on is anecdotal evidence and the "I haven't seen it, so it must not exist" mentality.

Completely false that's it's easy to obtain resources?  Hmm...  Open google...  Type in "free VX Ace sprites" or whatever else you're looking for...  blammo, you got some that were easy as a simple search to find.  Our forums even have the same search function...  Though, most people here rightly demand some kind of compensation for their work (especially if you plan to sell your game).  Requesting the resources is as easy as simply making the post to ask for 'em and what you'd be willing to pay.  I've seen people do recolors for free, though admittedly, I don't know how often that actually happens (that's not a part of the forums I spend a lot of time in).  There are even tutorials for how to do recolors and alterations yourself along with people in this very topic telling everyone how easy those particular things are to do.  So... yeah... custom content is fairly easy to obtain.  Now, if you're talking "high quality custom content", then yeah, much harder to obtain.  Almost never free either.

Eh, about the book argument...  No, most book stores actually separate their books by what they are.  Cook books.  Fiction.  Non-fiction.  Fantasy.  Sci Fi.  Murder mystery.  Romance.  Etcetera.  I choose the section of books I want to look at (what I'm in the mood to read, or what I prefer to read in terms of content) and then look for other criteria.  If I want a book that will last a while, I look at thicker ones.  If I want one as just a "quick read" or a "cheap buy" so I can get multiple books, I look through thinner books.  If I'm looking for something completely unexpected, yes, I will go through pretty much every book in the section I'm looking for.  I'll read the back, see if it's something that sounds unique or interesting, and pick it up if I like it.  I don't ever once use the title or the cover to decide what I'm going to read.  Why?  I've been surprised enough by all forms of media that I've learned "don't judge a book by it's cover" isn't just some hokey line people aspire to and never do...  No, it's fantastic advice.

Aesthetics is not the same as "custom content".  Aesthetics is how well things appear as well as how well they match to each other...  It can be custom content, sure, but it's not limited to that.  You can achieve pretty good Aesthetics with just the RTP if you know what you're doing with mapping and such.  As for "removing aesthetics completely and still get an amazing game".  Well, I point you to text adventures.  I point you to dwarf fortress.  The "graphics" of those games are all imagined (unless you load up your own texture pack into Dwarf Fortress...  which is your choice... but a lot of people who play, don't do that).  It is possible to "remove all graphics" and make a great game.  It's just that, such a thing really isn't your taste...  Or the taste of current gamers, so it goes ignored or is cited as "stupid".  Gamers, currently, are in favor of spectacle instead of using any form of imagination.  While gaming is a very visual medium, some things can be left to imagination.  Do you really need blood and gore to indicate death or to scare someone?  No, you don't.  You can accomplish that with atmosphere.  Graphics help.  Yes they do.  They are important.  Yes, they are.  My point is not "remove them entirely".  My point is and always has been, "It's not always or even often necessary to flashy content, or even custom content not contained in the RTP".

Oh, and no, I didn't ignore your arguments just to keep arguing.  I just picked the ones that were relevant to reply to (IE:  The ones I didn't agree with).  If you think I "ignored" some portion of your post, just assume I agree with it.  You did say "If a game hasn't made any effort to do anything but use the out of the box visuals, I won't even pick it up".  You continued trying to hammer that point home without ever once stating, "It's really how they use the RTP that matters to me".  Nope, you said, "I won't pick up a game if all it uses is the RTP".  I don't know about you, but that says to me, "no custom content?  I'm not even going to give your game a chance!"  That's what I've been arguing against the entire time.  Complain that I "ignore your posts" all you want, but you said it.  Seriously, it's the same post you said you agreed with that other guy.  I read it, I found it more than a little condescending and childish, and took offense to it.  But, instead of being a raving jerk about it, I tried to nudge you into at least agreeing that such a standpoint was somewhat silly, as you should be judging games (or indeed trying them out) based on more than some screenshot or short video.

Actually, here's where I think we're getting hung up on the entire argument:

If all you're using is the RTP, it isn't really that big of a deal.  Unless you want to charge money for it.  If your RTP only game is free or dirt cheap...  Well, people are more inclined to at least give it a try, despite what they perceive as "bad graphics".  Human standards come into play when you start asking someone to drop $10 or more on your game that you haven't even upgraded the graphics on.  People then perceive the lack of custom content as "not worth the money I'd spend on the game".  But, if they were told, "You can get this game for $1", they have a much higher chance of going, "Eh, sure, I need something new to play, a dollar is pretty cheap, I'll give a shot, maybe it'll be fun".  In that case, graphics aren't what sold the game.

In fact, what sells any game (whether you're charging $0 or $100) is perceived value by the customer.  That's the reason F2P exists.  "Oh, this game is free?  Sure, I'll download it and play it".  Next thing a player knows, they've dropped $20 on it.

If all games were sold according to their content, then RTP only games for free or for less than $5 is great value to a consumer and so it wouldn't matter much that all you're using is "out of the box" materials.  But, if you were looking to charge $20 or more on your product...  Well, you need a lot of custom content (not just graphics!  You'd need scripts, sounds, music, menus, etcetera!) to convince a customer that your game is worth the $20 you're asking for it.

So, to really sum up the whole argument:

It's what you do with RTP that matters, not the fact that it's all you're using.  The exception is if you're trying to sell it, in which case, you need to put a lot of work into it to convince a customer that it's worth what you're asking.  Custom content helps you sell your game to people who want more perceived value from a game, but it isn't entirely necessary to create a good game.  Custom content is your packaging and it can be either good or bad, depending on its use as well.  Dismissal of any game "out of hand" by a player because of "used only RTP" or "it doesn't look good" is really silly and you don't want those kinds of players anyway.  If a player says, "these maps are designed pretty horribly", then that's good criticism of your game that doesn't rely on people who are "Graphics Snobs".  After all, a blank featureless corridor is boring in any resolution with any amount of detail of the walls.

If your game is cheap or free, no, there's zero wrong with using the RTP.  If you plan to charge a decent chunk of money...  Well, you need to hire an artist to get the "perceived value" up on your product to get people to part with their cash.

 

[Celianna]

Limbo (a game in which the entirety of the "graphics" are pure black silhouettes). And "Thomas Was Alone". Granted, I've never played either, but they receive pretty high acclaim from players and critics alike...

Limbo is GORGEOUS. How in the world is that an example of "Lol graphics don't matter"? Because Limbo was totally made popular DUE to its graphics and creepy atmosphere.

 

[cabfe]

I guess the misunderstanding is about graphics as a pixel display or as an art form.

 

[Sharm]

Eh...  Two examples in all of gaming then, Sharm.

*sigh* I asked for a good game where the aesthetics were ignored, and you give me two games with excellent aesthetics. Also, Limbo is gorgeous, I'm not sure why you think that one has "bad graphics". BTW, I have played Thomas was alone, the graphics were an excellent and essential part of the story it was telling. It couldn't have been done with high fidelity graphics.

Right now, all either of us is drawing on is anecdotal evidence and the "I haven't seen it, so it must not exist" mentality.

No, I've come to my conclusion because of my study of how graphics work in general and how it works on players in gaming. It isn't just from my personal experience but also from reading articles and talking to professionals in the industry. Since that is my job, I feel that the study of it is an essential part of my success.

Completely false that's it's easy to obtain resources?

You said "custom". Now, if you were just meaning to say "one or two custom items that amount to no more than recolors" then I agree with you, that is quite easy to get. Still slightly more effort than just using RTP, but still, extremely easy. But the way you were arguing about it made it sound like you were saying "everything in the game" custom, which is a completely different thing. Anyway, I wasn't trying to say that making an effort to do something with graphics is hard, I was trying to say that it should be done because it shows you care. Pointing out how easy it is just proves my point really.

If I'm looking for something completely unexpected, yes, I will go through pretty much every book in the section I'm looking for.

Wow, you are the only person I know who does that. I personally think it's a waste of time, because people spend lots of money to research and create those covers to tell you as much information as possible in as little time as possible. Might I miss something awesome? Yep. Will I spend less time combing through and playing complete drivel to find something enjoyable? Yep. And that's the thing that's the most important to me. The most important to a lot of people, really.

Aesthetics is not the same as "custom content".

Very true, but I think in the case of RM games it is the same. Just because of what RM games are.


EDIT: I realized I worded this extremely poorly and it's misleading. What I meant was that I think to get a game with effort made in aesthetics you would have to have some sort of custom content in an RM game, just because an RM game that has nothing custom has nothing to separate it from the other RM games, and therefore would not be aesthetically pleasing.

My point is and always has been, "It's not always or even often necessary to flashy content, or even custom content not contained in the RTP".

You've used so many absolutes in your arguments that I did not believe that to be the case. I'm happy that I'm wrong. I agree that text games are pretty awesome, but I also don't think they ignore aesthetics. You can have aesthetics with pure text.

You continued trying to hammer that point home without ever once stating, "It's really how they use the RTP that matters to me".

Ah, my apologies. I thought I had said that or at least implied that well enough that it didn't need to be stated. My mistake. I state it now, how the out of box graphics are use are what's important to me. If no effort has gone into using them well I assume that no effort has gone into other elements of the game and that the game holds nothing of value for me.

Nope, you said, "I won't pick up a game if all it uses is the RTP".

I did, but I also clarified that statement by saying that it wouldn't take much to make the graphical content unique to your game so that I would look at it. Even lighting would be enough.

Actually, here's where I think we're getting hung up on the entire argument:

No, it isn't. I've been arguing as if the games we're talking about are free. I agree with the statement you made that followed. I just think that if you want more than a few people outside your friends and family playing you're going to need to put a little effort into making it look good. There are just too many RM games out there for game with nothing going for it visually to not get lost among everything else. Maybe the difference in our opinion is that I happen to think you need to sell even a free game, because even if you pay nothing, time will be spent, and you have to convince someone that your game is worth that.